Disposed

V.E.Thomas v. Rakesh Mishra

Kerala HC8 Dec 2014Con.Case(C)/1334/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case alleging non-compliance with a direction to deposit compensation, the court observed a discrepancy in the nominated bank branch. Instead of proceeding with contempt proceedings, the court directed the respondent to deposit the amount in the petitioner's submitted branch, thereupon closing the case.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to deposit the compensation amount in the State Bank of Travancore, Pariyaram Branch, Kottayam; the contempt case was subsequently closed.

V.E.Thomas Vs Rakesh Mishra — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶5

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶6

Con.Case(C).No. 1334 of 2014 (S) IN MFA.67/2010

¶7

MFA 67/2010 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 30-07-2014

¶8

PETITIONER(S):

¶9

V.E.THOMAS AGED 62 YEARS S/O.ESRAEL, INCHAKATTU HOUSE, PARIYARAM KOTTAYAM

¶10

ANNAMMAL, AGED 54 YEARS W/O.V.E.THOMAS, INCHAKATTU HOUSE, PARIYARAM KOTTAYAM

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.MARTIN G.THOTTAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

RAKESH MISHRA

¶14

GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI 600 003.

¶15

R BY SRI.C.S.DIAS,SC, RAILWAYS

¶16

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Con.Case(C).No. 1334 of 2014 (S)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

ANNEXURE A1 - CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.7.2010 IN MFA.67 OF 2010 ANNEXURE A2 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED3.9.2014 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF CLAIMS OFFICER.

¶21

ANNEXURE A3 - TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 21.10.2014.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

// TRUE COPY //

P.A. TO JUDGE

sou.

ASHOK BHUSHAN, Ag.CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶28

Cont. Case. No. 1334 of 2014

¶29

----------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 8^th day of December, 2014

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

A.M.Shaffique J

¶32

This contempt case has been filed alleging non-compliance of direction issued by this court in judgment dated 30.7.2010 in M.F.A. No.67 of 2010, wherein this court while dismissing the appeal filed by the respondent Union of India has directed that the amount of compensation with interest has to be paid within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Though the petitioner has given particulars of bank account for remittance by the bank, by Annexure A2 dated 7.10.2014, the petitioner was informed that the direction from the Railway Claims Tribunal was to pay 50% of the decretal amount by way of deposit in SBI, Velloor Branch, Kottayam, whereas, the petitioner has submitted Bank particulars of Pariyaram Branch, Kottayam. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to furnish the bank particulars as per the direction of the Railway Claims Tribunal.

¶33

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent having not complied with the direction, taken a stand which was not available to them as per the judgment.

¶34

COC.No.1334/14

¶35

¶36

Learned Standing Counsel on instructions submits that Annexure A2 has been issued as per the direction issued by the Tribunal and therefore, the respondent has not committed any contempt of court.

¶37

Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has submitted the bank particulars of Pariyaram Branch, Kottayam, though the direction by the Railway Claims Tribunal was to deposit 50% of the amount in the Velloor Branch, having regard to the plight of the petitioner we direct the respondent authority to deposit the amount in the State Bank of Travancore, Pariyaram Branch, Kottayam. Learned counsel for the respondent also agree that the said deposit can be made as per the direction of this Court.

¶38

In view of the above, we do not think that there is any necessity to proceed with the aforesaid contempt case. Accordingly the same is closed.

¶39

Sd/- ASHOK BHUSHAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶40

Sd/- JUDGE.

¶41

A.M.SHAFFIQUE,

¶42

sou.

V.E.Thomas v. Rakesh Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.E.Thomas v. Rakesh Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The District Collector Vs Alikoya

K.J.Paulose Vs the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Ernakulam

Kollam Corporation Vs Jacob Vaidyan

N.Gopalakrishnan Vs Rakesh Mishra

State of Kerala, Rep. by the Chief Secre Vs Hotel Leelaventure Ltd. and 3 Others

A.M. Harees Vs State of Kerala